this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
311 points (98.7% liked)
Memes
16199 readers
641 users here now
Post memes here.
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.
- Wait at least 2 months before reposting
- No explicitly political content (about political figures, political events, elections and so on), !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca can be better place for that
- Use NSFW marking accordingly
Laittakaa meemejä tänne.
- Odota ainakin 2 kuukautta ennen meemin postaamista uudelleen
- Ei selkeän poliittista sisältöä (poliitikoista, poliittisista tapahtumista, vaaleista jne) parempi paikka esim. !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
- Merkitse K18-sisältö tarpeen mukaan
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For what it's worth many data centers include their own power generation. Would be a boon for modular nuclear reactors if they were ready and if the us wasn't so shy about nuclear. I wonder if other countries are having this issue? Like is there a big pushback to data centers in china, India, UAE, or Singapore? If not then what's the difference and how are they managing data center development?
Kevin's data center is going to run on natural gas generators in a valley which already suffers from horrible inversions every year. The Wasatch front valley has some of the worst air quality in the world during the winter.
Nuclear is too expensive for the capitalists building these. They'd rather pollute than pay more money for nuclear.
In this case I'm referring to the Wonder Valley AI data centre campus just to be clear since I wasn't in OP, it's proposed for northwestern Alberta, Canada. Near Grande Prairie. He's got multiple on the go.
Ohhh, I forgot that he had multiple.. what a scumbag.
Not arguing but just curious. I didn't think natural gas plants heavily affected air quality. I'm aware that fracking has its share of issues, notably ground water contamination. I always thought coal plants were the ones with emissions issues.
Gas burns cleaner than coal, but almost nothing burns 100% clean. Nor is any fuel source 100% pure.
Hold a lighter up to some tinfoil. See the soot?
I mean yeah but is it burning in such a way it's actually impacting people's wellbeing? Is it creating that much atmospheric pollution even with waste fume scrubbers? I cook with natural gas and it doesn't leave soot. I'm not sure where you are but anywhere I've been lighters use butane and not natural gas. I'm not trying to be a jerk, just trying to get an accurate picture of the situation.
Perfectly combusted butane only releases CO2 and water, too. The point of that experiment is showing nothing burns perfectly. Even 100% pure methane burning at 100% efficiency releases CO2, which has measurable toxicity in humans.
That being said, largery hydrocarbons will generally burn less perfectly then smaller ones. Methane has 1 carbon. Butane has four. Gasoline has 8-10, lower grade fuels have more, tars get to 20-30. Coal is a mixture of tars and hydrocarbons with even longer carbon chains.
So natural gas powerplants with sufficient exhaust scrubbers are having a substantial effect on atmospheric pollutants? I feel like we keep getting off of the main question here. Like to stoves and lighters and such. I get nothing burns perfectly clean but seems like just an engineering hurtle to me. With natural gas I'm typically more concerned about the hydro fracking aspect. There's really not a solution to groundwater contamination in fracking beyond them saying it didn't happen.
Yeah. Of course, the phrase "sufficient exhaust scrubbers" is about as reasonable as "100% perfect combustion" in this context. Engineering or no.
Natural gas still causes pollution, just less than coal.
I grew up with natural gas, and if you didn't turn on the hood it would get nasty inside. It also made our pots and pans turn black during long cooking sessions.
Here's more info: https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/gas-stoves-and-indoor-air-pollution-explained/
And that's just from indoor stoves.
That was part of the natural gas grift: because it's slightly better than coal, and it has natural in the name, it must be clean! It fooled a lot of people, unfortunately and understandably.
I mean yeah if you displace air (nitrogen and oxygen) with anything you're going to have a bad time, but I didn't think natural gas plants were straight up leaking valuable natural gas everywhere like a home stove or gas heater can. The black soot is interesting, must mean the natural gas source was tainted because as far as I know pure natural gas burns totally clean. Just to check, we were speaking about natural gas plants for energy generation right?
It does not burn totally clean. All extracts of gas and oil, including that of natural gas (which is methane) are not 100% pure and do not burn at 100% efficiency. If that were the case, there would be no byproducts, such as leftover methane. It also turns into CO2 when burned, which while not as harmful to the environment, is not something you want built up during an inversion and can contribute to climate change.
Even if it were some how burned at 100% efficiency, there is an even bigger source of pollution before it ever gets to the power plant: leaks.
Source: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-does-natural-gas-contribute-climate-change-through-co2-emissions-when-fuel-burned
Natural gas is still a pollutant in multiple ways. While it's cleaner than coal, it is still a contributor to greenhouse gasses, both while burning and in transit to customers (including power plants). "Natural gas" is a greenwashing marketing term from big oil and gas companies. It's methane. That's what it is. It has been shown to warm the climate in multiple ways (CO2 and methane) and is a contributor to children getting life long asthma. It should not be used at all, but especially not in a valley that gets intense inversions which trap the gas.
The Wikipedia page goes into much more detail, under "environmental effects": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas
Yea, they are reopening shut down gas and coal plants, so it’s even fucking worse
Man modular nuclear would be so good right now, in some cases we could even drop them into decommissioned gas and coal plants aka use the heat exchanger and turbines. Within reason it would be nice to see them fast tracked for this.
I think the small modular reactor concept is overdone. Small doesn't mean cheap, and cheap is what we want.
The small size isn't specifically what is intended to make SMRs cheap; it's the reproducibility. Not every location will be suitable for gigawatt scale reactors, but smaller reactors, made of components you can throw on a rail car, will bring cost down as production scales up. And there would likely be more reactors built, since there's more flexibility in application.
................................. Allow me to amend my statement to what was obvious. Small and reproducable doesn’t mean cheap electricity, and cheap electricity is what we want.
I would take carbon free electricity over cheaper electricity any day, but yes those with the money buying power generation want primarily the cheapest energy.
omg how are you guys misreading this so much.
Small and reproducable doesn’t mean cheap electricity when compared to typical large nuclear reactors, and cheap electricity is what we want.
Large nuclear reactors scare VC with large upside cost and delayed construction so they don't get built. Known and tested SMR's pretty much have that covered. I'll accept clean energy over cheaper.
You don't need VC. And you're back to what was already covered. I'm just gonna stop responding.